Topband: Overseas Allocations

[K1ZM at aol.com]

Hi Dennis and All

Dennis makes some very good points and he is right on in his thinking.

So too is N2EA in his recent post.

Overseas allocations do not align or mesh very well with themselves nor do 
they mesh in harmony with US allocations (the bandplan).

If we all were to have awakened on Wednesday morning and learned that the FCC 
had proposed 160M rulemaking on the basis of RM-10352, while some might have 
thought our "collective work" was over and done, I would argue otherwise - and 
Dennis K0CKD has pointed out what I would have suggested was the next 
mountain to climb.

If you think about 160M, it was historically the "bastard child" of Loran for 
many years.  Finally around 1980 we got the full band back and then, some 
time later we got the upper band back at a full KW power level. 

If you think that was progress at a snail's pace, consider this - BELGIUM 
(ON) did not get 160M back until JANUARY 1, 1987!

Hungary came even later I think.  That's hard to believe.

So, if you think of a timeline for forward progress on 160m, we have the 
early days pre-WWII, post WWII, late 1980/early 1981 here in the US and then full 
power in the upper band some years later.

These milestones might be likened to furlongs in the Kentucky Derby - or to 
innings in a nine inning baseball game.  Had the FCC favoured us with a 
positive decision on RM-10352, here in the US we might have been rounding the turn 
for home.  However, on a global basis, we probably would be somewhere in the 
mid-game because there remains a whole lot of hard work necessary before the 
complete job is done.

I like to think of where we are in these terms:

1) We need to sort our own problems out here in the US

2) Then we need to advance the ball globally by working with those in a 
position to LEAD and there is actually a possibility that (over time) more positive 
things can emerge - if people work together.

Overseas matters are handled at a WRC or World Radio Conference. These are 
held periodically (I do not know the exact schedule) but the IDEAL would be a 
world where the 160M band worlDwide was on a more equal basis and footing.

Man - this is tough work but it is possible.  If you think I am smoking 
Tijuana GOLD here, let me point out that 20 years ago I might have said (after a 
few beers) that 40 phone is a "vast wasteland"!  What a mess!  In a weak moment, 
I might even have likened it to a "three sticks of dynamite solution" and 
then start over. (Said tongue in cheek).

But, thanks to GOOD LEADERSHIP and HARD WORK, we are all going to benefit by 
a global harmonization of the 40M band - with 200Khz of global overlap - and 
us here in REGION II continuing to be able to populate the band to 7.300.  
That's an almost herculean achievement.  Some might have said it would never 
happen, even yours truly.

My point here is, if we can come together on a global basis to harmonize 40M, 
why cannot we attempt to move in the same direction on 160M?  It is possible 
in the mind's eye - but it will take alot of work.

The ARRL is the US representative at World Radio Conferences, eg:  our 
representative in such matters, and should properly be the focal point from our 
side.  In this case, though, the overseas administrations are the final decision 
makers within their respective countries and they would have to provide the 
impetus to effect change as they saw fit.  That's a big job and it would move 
VERY slowly even if it were to find favor in selected countries.  It might take 
many years and successes would be hard-earned indeed.

My point is that such things are possible.

Who knows, maybe not in my lifetime - but you never know.

We have made some good progress here on 160M over the years but there remains 
work yet to be done.

Dennis has identified one of the key areas for future reassessment and it is 
an important part of what is a possible long-term roadmap to consider.

73 JEFF

K1ZM at aol.com